Cliff, You are doing us all a great service by showing some of the Wikipedia articles marked for deletion. Every day, there are dozens of such articles. The Wikipedia is not a book of all knowledge. It is a book of knowledge deemed "notable" by a self-appointed gang of vigilantes.Regards, -Paul

The original TV3 entry is priceless for the way it digs up the dirt on the Catalan TV broadcasting network - and it's all factually true an verifiable! But it's the kind of real-life stuff that frightens the willies out of the pro-corporate Wikipedia apparatchniks. Well, what else can you expect of an encyclopedia founded by a former securities trader and Internet pornographer? Here's the link:

Hi there, I wonder if you are aware of the controversey surrounding the NPA theory a year and a half back? This could be saved here. It was deleted, but here is the content of the article courtesy of Wikipedia Watch; http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/npa.html

Here is some reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_M._Benis

"List of buzzwords" is about to be deleted because despite being well sourced and popular it is a) a list and b) contains buzzwords. Both things which apparently infuriate some people on Wikipedia. Please save.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buzzwords

by the editors who described it as total garbage and nonsense and indeed engaged int he same behavior as the article described

They self-showed that they were stupid, too stupid to even realize what they were doing making fools of themselves...

==DEFINITION==

Wiki fascism: (noun) The tendency of editors and administrators (or those with Wikipedia power) to instantly assume all contributions, new pages, and other modifications are wrong, invalid, misguided, don't follow procedure, no wanted, and to delete them -- instead of letting these new pages grow by the user community's edits and additions. Killing the baby pages at birth; not letting them mature. This tendency was not prevalent in years before 2007 but is perhaps inevitable now that Wikipedia has grown. Also involves killing common knowledge additions to articles before the contributor has tracked down the exact reference on the assumption that the contributor is wrong or that the contributor has no clue what he is talking about. Also involves petty empowered Wikipedia experts playing “God” with the content and direction of the Wiki project contrary to its original sprit of a community and its replacement by a new orthodox order of privileged editors and censors.

I AND ALL POSTINGS OR BLOG OR COMMENTS BY ME MUST BE TOTALLY UNANIMOUS->

GO LOOK UP THE sub-Planck page, all versions, all TWELVE editors who tried to kill it over a two week period; all the "reasons" they gave, and all the criticism they ignored...

It is a Dreyfus Affair like situation:

Wikipedia destroyed itself:

here is what some guy was saying about the editors who deleted it...

can you track it all down and get all the info..

Dear editor of wikipedia who killed it:

- There is nothing to discuss; this is a legitimate physics topic that for some reason you and the other editors are clueless about and shoot on sight or confuse with the related Planck Scale pages. - - You obviously know little or nothing about physics; all of you; I put down enough references to make you all happy. If you are seriously curious as to IF THIS IS LEGITIMATE get the two BRIAN GREENE books NOW, read them or at least look at the pages and pages of use of the word "sub-Planck" perhaps then after realizing that he is not reference to "Planck scale" objects, you will believe me. - - It is just sick that 1 person who knows something -- me can be thwarted by editors who do not--what flaws I had writing the article should be improved by others instead of attacking as whitchcraft that with which you don't understand...

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:WikfascismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletionJump to: navigation, searchThe following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was spedy jackboot [sic] (CSD G8). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:WikfascismTalkpage of deleted Wikifascism article now being used to soapbox and effectively being used as the Wikifascism article. Fredrick day 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Aren't associated talk pages usually deleted when their articles are deleted? Why wasn't this one? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC) I *think* if someone is posting on them when they deleted, they don't disappear. --Fredrick day 13:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC) I see what happened, the deleted article was wikifascism, and this talk page, talk:wikfascism (misspelled, notice one "i" missing) was created anew afterwards. In that case... Speedy delete - Just a user complaining that his article got deleted. Don't belong anywhere but in userspace, perhaps. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:57, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

November 8, 2008. Easthampton, MA:Intimidation, bullying, sarcasm: such are the tactics used by the current editors of Wikipedia’s “Satanic Ritual Abuse” article (and other related articles) to promote pedophilia: (1) by discounting the existence of sexual crimes against children associated with true or staged satanic worship; and (2) by undoing all references in Wikipedia articles by editors who present findings from research and legal cases that support the existence of ritual/sexual crimes against children by organized groups of pedophiles. (See article and discussion pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse).

The article describes Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) as “a moral panic.” References by persons associated with child pornography or false memory type organizations that have been known to defend accused and convicted pedophiles, make it appear that the article is structured to cover up for pedophiles and their criminal perversions.

Findings from the 2007 international online Extreme Abuse Survey (http://extreme-abuse-survey.net) indicate that satanic ritual abuse is widespread. Of 1471 respondents from 31 countries who reported extreme abuse in childhood, 543 reported that they were ritually abused in a satanic cult. This number of SRA reports cited from a highly credible source, Karnac Books, of London was among many findings supporting the existence of ritual abuse deleted by editors who consider such viewpoints as having a “fringe focus.”....

Ritual abuse is defined in the Dictionary of Psychology as “A method of control of people of all ages consisting of physical, sexual, and psychological mistreatment through the use of rituals” (Corsini, 1999, p. 848).

Young, Sacks, Braun & Watkins (1991) use the term “satanic ritual abuse” to describe ritual abuse associated with satanic worship. Becker and Fröhling (1998) caution that (1) a ritual can be staged to make a victim believe that the ideological background is real, i.e., a child is made to think she has murdered a baby as a sacrifice to Satan or another deity, (2) that whether or not a ritual is staged, the victim is bound into the real or faked belief system of the perpetrator(s).

A June 2007 review of psychological and medical peer-reviewed journals yielded 47 empirical studies of the RA phenomenon.

Bottoms, Shaver, and Goodman (1996) indicate that the majority of surveyed therapists who have treated at least one alleged survivor believe their clients’ claims of ritual abuse. Schmuttermaier and Veno (1999) report that none of the counselors in their Australian study believe that their clients intentionally fabricated claims of ritual abuse....

Page about writer just deleted despite over 70 references to his and other "sources'" references to his work. Fiction, poetry, legal writings. Check it out at the cache of the deleted wikipedia listing: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-3l7mcUWZD4J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Waldman+mitchell+waldman+wikipedia&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

From the bold to the beautiful, from the wicked to the wise,
every day the Wikipedia team relegates possibly "inappropriate"
submissions to the garbage dump of time.
Here, we make selected "potential" rejects immortal and preserve them for posterity.
(All of these entries have been nominated for deletion at the time of posting.)

Is your
entry
about to be deleted from Wikipedia? I’ll give you a second chance.